TOP REASONS FOR LAY GOVERNANCE: #1

Ed. Note: Pistrina concludes its series on the compelling reasons for lay governance.

The single most important reason for firmly securing traditional chapels in the hands of the bill-paying laity is this: A constellation of doubts looms over many Traddie clergy, which augurs ill for an overly trusting laity.  The doubts run the gamut from the unlikely (Liénart's withholding of intention) to the certain (the fitness of these men for the Catholic priesthood). We are unsure of everything about them -- their background, their vocation, and their zeal for the faithful.  No matter how benign some of these priests and prelates appear on the surface, it's unwise to assume they are remotely like the clergy some of us knew in the days before the crisis. Why, nowadays, the laity can't even observe Reagan's famous catchphrase, "Trust but verify," for too much is unknowable until the restored Church speaks.

Let's look at the most salient of these doubts. Pistrina doesn't assert the doubts are positive; that's a matter best left to each person's conscience. Pistrina does affirm, however, that, at a minimum, the many nagging doubts about character, validity, and competence argue for the laity's retaining complete control of the financial and business end of their chapels. Very few public- or private-sector enterprises harboring similar doubts about key associates would allow such people to remain unaccountable to the organization's stakeholders. Likewise, in the Sede Vacante, without an authority to whom they may petition for redress, the laity must guarantee accountability by assuming the burden of governance.

Review the following list, and be sure to add your own doubts. By the time you're finished, you'll be ready to begin the crusade to retake your chapels. The prize is noble: the safeguarding of your investment and the sanctification of your priest, who will finally be free to obey the first law of the Catholic Church -- the salvation of souls.

• Inferior priestly formation and education. Today's "seminaries" are a mockery of the once rigorous institutions in which priests were educated. The admission standards are far from selective (we only need to mention that recently one Russian seminarian became a Catholic after he matriculated to the pesthouse). We've seen how one completer forgot the consecration, and how another couldn't perform a graveside service, and how another couldn't bless holy water without a spasm of doubts.  We've also seen how these poor souls have invented new mortal sins to scare the laity into compliance. Moreover, on these pages, we've exposed the senior clergy's sham claim to scholarship for the nonsense that it is: they are not scholars, are definitely not theologians, and are light years away from brilliance.

• Thuc Line.  Whatever your personal opinion is, grave doubts persist in spite of arguments in favor of validity. (The most persuasive and thorough defense of Thuc orders in general came from a layman, not from the clergy!) We'll never really know until the Church one day decides the matter. In the best case, we must admit, Thuc orders, especially through the Carmona sub-lineage, will always be a question of concern.

• Ordination by One Hand. Putting aside the Thuc question, there is still the problem of "One-Hand" Dan's orders. If he isn't a priest, then he isn't a bishop, and he has therefore not conferred the priesthood on the men he is said to have "ordained." Since the Blunderer's defense has so many scholarly failings, strong doubts will always remain about the validity of orders received from his hands.

• Obsession with Money and Luxury. Numerous Traddie clergy devote countless hours to feathering their nests and providing themselves with a very comfortable life. Some are even so bold as to recount their vacation adventures in sermons and bulletins. They are always collecting for something, and there's usually no accounting for how the funds were expended. Some insist on staying at high-end hotels and resorts while others wantonly spend on lavish restaurant meals and over-the-top ceremonies. One priest of extremely humble origins once demanded of his parish new living quarters because his decently but simply furnished bedroom was too small; at a meeting of the laity, he angrily called it a "cave" and claimed he was worthy of something much better.

• Differential Treatment of the Faithful.  One of the most notable features of a traditional chapel is the obvious favoritism that big donors receive -- at least until some of them realize that they're being abused. Deep pockets speak loudly and influence much; the "have-nots" know precisely where they stand in the pecking order. Prohibitions or rules that bind the regular folk are relaxed for families that give the most. In some cases, the big contributors often call the shots as the clergy fawningly tow the line.

• Religious Coercion. Many of these priests retain power by openly threatening the people with banishment from the sacraments. They behave as though the sacraments were their personal property -- to be administered at their discretion and to be used as a weapon to suppress honest dissent. 

You don't need to be a theologian to sense there is something wrong with such men. There's just too much doubt on every front to trust them completely. Lay governance is the only means to keep hard-earned assets from becoming plunder for clerical freebooters.